EU still unhappy with Apple over silence on two-year warranty

The EU's Viviane Reding says Apple's efforts are "simply not good enough."

The EU remains unhappy with Apple when it comes to informing customers about their right to a two-year warranty on their purchases, as reported by Dow Jones Business News. EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding spoke on Tuesday about Apple's warranty practices, pointing out that the company hasn't been forthcoming in making customers aware that they can get free hardware repairs past Apple's standard one-year warranty period, even after facing fines and lawsuits throughout Europe.

Reding had previously asked the EU's 27 member states to review whether Apple had properly advertised buyers' rights to a two-year warranty. The answer is apparently that Apple hadn't been, and enforcement across the EU has been inconsistent.

"This case and the responses I received since I sent my letter have highlighted rather clearly just why the Commission cannot sit on the sidelines on enforcement issues," Reding said on Tuesday. "The approaches to enforcement in these types of cases turn out to be very diversified and inconsistent at a national level. In at least 21 EU Member States Apple is not informing consumers correctly about the legal warranty rights they have. This is simply not good enough."

Reding's comments come just after Apple reportedly shifted its warranty policy in Australia to cover hardware bought in the last two years—though retail employees were allegedly told not to talk about it. Apple has already been fined in Italy for misleading customers about their right to a two-year warranty, and the company currently faces lawsuits over the same thing in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, and Portugal, according to Reding.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

Well ironic as that, at least where I live - Lithuania, when I bought my MacBook Air last year, local reseller tried to make it clear that warranty is only for 1 year. Did not care much though as I know about EU laws already. But people are being cheated.

They never seem to distinguish what Applecare they are talking about. Computer AppleCare in the states is 3 years of warranty, while Applecare+ on mobile devices covers physical hardware damage which the manufacturer warranty does not. I would like to know what specifically is on the table here.

On one hand I don't see why governments should be meddling in private business. Warranties are part of competition.

On the other, if that is the law, then it should be enforced and Apple not following it is unacceptable.

Extended warranties are part of the competition. The law mandates a minimum in this regard, and the minimum happens to be two years in that case.So yes, it is unacceptable, whatever the case in your home country, which is probably different from mine.

We all have to obey our local laws, even when/if we fail to understand the law in other countries, most often for cultural reasons).

Oh sure, if you spot the tiny "2" where it says in blue letters "garantia de um ano" (=one year warranty) and follow it to the bottom of the page and read the even tinyier grey letters in gray background you'll find a link to the actual facts. Note that the tiny "2" *isn't* a link, you have to manually scroll to the end of the page to find out what it means.

On one hand I don't see why governments should be meddling in private business. Warranties are part of competition.

On the other, if that is the law, then it should be enforced and Apple not following it is unacceptable.

Governments meddle in private business because that is their job. We form governments to regulate ourselves and to represent the wants and needs of a society. Some people seem to think the free market is the end all be all solution to private enterprise but it has it own problems. We've seen what a pure free market delivers, and while there are good things, like economic development, and rising standards of living, there are also bad things like trusts and monopolies, and corruption.

Apple has very little competition. In the mobile space they have one real competitor, same as in the traditional computing market. They have no incentive to provide anything outside of a basic warranty if they think they can sell that as an addon for more money. In a truly free market, where hackintoshes could be sold next to iMacs, maybe they'd have an incentive to offer a better warranty out of the box.

In any case the EU has decided, on behalf of the member nations who make up its officials, that a 2 year warranty is required on companies selling these goods. So Apple will either follow the law or they will be punished.

Governments meddle in private business because that is their job. We form governments to regulate ourselves and to represent the wants and needs of a society. Some people seem to think the free market is the end all be all solution to private enterprise but it has it own problems. We've seen what a pure free market delivers, and while there are good things, like economic development, and rising standards of living, there are also bad things like trusts and monopolies, and corruption.

I'm with Apple on this one. Government mandated warranties on consumer electronics? Dumb.

Tell that to 60% of X-Box 360 purchasers in the first couple years of that product's life span. The reason that there's a minimum warranty is so you can't just throw your quality control away and release faulty products willy-nilly. It also helps insulate you against "self-destruct" features to get you to buy new devices. Basically it's the opposite of the music/film industry model of getting you to constantly repurchase things in new formats or to replace media you can no longer make backups of.

On one hand I don't see why governments should be meddling in private business. Warranties are part of competition.

On the other, if that is the law, then it should be enforced and Apple not following it is unacceptable.

Governments meddle in private business because that is their job. We form governments to regulate ourselves and to represent the wants and needs of a society. Some people seem to think the free market is the end all be all solution to private enterprise but it has it own problems. We've seen what a pure free market delivers, and while there are good things, like economic development, and rising standards of living, there are also bad things like trusts and monopolies, and corruption.

Apple has very little competition. In the mobile space they have one real competitor, same as in the traditional computing market. They have no incentive to provide anything outside of a basic warranty if they think they can sell that as an addon for more money. In a truly free market, where hackintoshes could be sold next to iMacs, maybe they'd have an incentive to offer a better warranty out of the box.

In any case the EU has decided, on behalf of the member nations who make up its officials, that a 2 year warranty is required on companies selling these goods. So Apple will either follow the law or they will be punished.

I actually agree that government regulation is required in many industries. I just have a feeling that in this case it is not required.

Apple has a whole lot more then 2 competitors in the smart phone market. If you are discounting the likes of Blackberry, Nokia, Motorola, and HTC from the cell phone market because they have lower marketshare then you should out right remove Apple from the computer market because their market share there is very low indeed.

I do like your point about hackintoshes. The difference between hardware and software is a truly new and unique issues which I think laws around the world are struggling with. I see your argument that you should be able to install software you bought on any computer you wish, if you can make it work. On the other hand I see Apple's side in which they sold you a license to use that software in a pre defined manner. Without Apple being able to do that they would have fully monetize each and every OS X sale, which is a business model they have chosen not to use. I do not believe there an analogy that describes this situation, I dislike car analogies.

Back to cell phone warranties. Is there proof that without regulation to enforce minimum warranty terms there will be a race to bottom to the detriment of the customer? The only other market I can think of that seems competitive on warranties is cars(note the above paragraph) where the warranties are huge competitive advantage for some companies, so clearly competition is working there. When has it not worked on consumer goods?

Should our governments just go ahead and do the populist thing? I guess that is their function.

No proof needed: if I can charge you for a warranty, or give you one for free, I'm going to charge you. There may be more competitors in the market, but the only meaningful competitors in this one right now are Apple and Samsung. Already MSFT tried pulling a THIRTY DAY warranty on the X-Box 360 (though thanks to that 60% failure rate they basically extended it indefinitely FOR THAT ONE ISSUE), in spite of the fact that you could make a case that it's a computer and should have been covered by the 12-month mandatory warranty (in the US) for pre-built computer sales.

There's very little incentive to maintain free warranties when provided the opportunity to charge instead, not even as a competitive advantage (unless it's DOA, most people don't bother jumping through the hoops for warranty repairs).

Mandatory warranties (and other consumer protection rules) are made by the gouvernements because of the unequal power of the producer versus the consumer. In theory no warranty would be needed, and if/when your iPhone, Galaxy or whatever you bought breaks within a reasonable peiod you could ask a replacement, and go to court when the producer refuses.

The court battle would cost several years, and lots of money - for a simple consumer good that would have died before the verdict anyway. In practice nobody would sue. (Class actions are another of those pro consumer rules where we could theoretically do without). And during the court battle the judges would have to decide each time what period is reasonable, and what kind of disfunctioning can be expected and what not.

So to protect the consumer each gouvernement has made rules on what you can expect of a product. In the US this is generally less then in the EU. One of those things is the duration of the (mandatory) warranty period, which is (as far as I know) one year in the US, and two years in the EU.

Apple quite often has trouble with following rules like these, where they are more restrictive of heavier for them than in the US. They somehow seem to think they don't need to bother, as they are US based. The EU gouvernement begs to differ.

The law applies do *all* "consumer goods", from wrist-watches, to cell phones, to TVs, to smartphones, to refrigerators, to cars, to pretty much anything you can buy, including houses where, in fact, the mandatory warranty is 5 years, instead of just 2.

Since the rules are the same for everybody, anyone claiming that Apple is being hurt by the law should step out of the Apple's Reality Distortion Field and face the actual factual reality.

The law is the same for everybody. No one is picking on Apple. Apple can still differentiate itself from the competition, simply offer more than what the law mandates. Car makers do this all the time by offering "extended warranty packs".

On one hand I don't see why governments should be meddling in private business. Warranties are part of competition.

On the other, if that is the law, then it should be enforced and Apple not following it is unacceptable.

If not the EU in general, many countries there have consumer protections laws (and even consumer unions) for the sole purpose of protecting them. That's typically what governments are for: protecting its citizens (which is open to interpretation). While we do have slightly similar things in the States, it's nowhere near the extent of what other countries have.

Forcing a two-year warranty encourages companies to make quality products that don't need constant repair which can increase consumer confidence, and can save money for companies (as in, build it right the first time and you won't have to spend as much in maintenance and support).

However, long gone are the times when that was the sole purpose of business. To make high-quality products and provide amazing customer support. These days, consumers are willing to sacrifice much of that in order to save a few dollars at the register, because things like customer support are significantly expensive. In the US, we've pretty much become complacent with businesses doing what they want because "the mean government shouldn't interfere" (not that they always should/shouldn't). Even to the point of legally allowing companies (like broadband) to have near monopolistic control over entire regions under the guise of promoting competition.

Mandatory warranties (and other consumer protection rules) are made by the gouvernements because of the unequal power of the producer versus the consumer. In theory no warranty would be needed, and if/when your iPhone, Galaxy or whatever you bought breaks within a reasonable peiod you could ask a replacement, and go to court when the producer refuses.

The court battle would cost several years, and lots of money - for a simple consumer good that would have died before the verdict anyway. In practice nobody would sue. (Class actions are another of those pro consumer rules where we could theoretically do without). And during the court battle the judges would have to decide each time what period is reasonable, and what kind of disfunctioning can be expected and what not.

So to protect the consumer each gouvernement has made rules on what you can expect of a product. In the US this is generally less then in the EU. One of those things is the duration of the (mandatory) warranty period, which is (as far as I know) one year in the US, and two years in the EU.

Apple quite often has trouble with following rules like these, where they are more restrictive of heavier for them than in the US. They somehow seem to think they don't need to bother, as they are US based. The EU gouvernement begs to differ.

We get all that. The issue at stake is that the EU seems to think it is the responsibility of Apple to inform them of their legal rights. Instead of, you know, just running some public service announcements or something.

I don't see anyone suggesting that consumer laws are bad, just that it is absurd to leave it up to a company to inform the consumer of those laws, and then complain about how the company does it.

Consumers should be aware of their rights; if the EU has reason to believe that they are not, then the EU should spend its money on some public service announcements instead of filing lawsuits. If there are mandatory disclosures that need to be made, then perhaps the EU should come up with standard terms and require those instead of saying, "No, not good enough, try again!"

We get all that. The issue at stake is that the EU seems to think it is the responsibility of Apple to inform them of their legal rights. Instead of, you know, just running some public service announcements or something.

I don't see anyone suggesting that consumer laws are bad, just that it is absurd to leave it up to a company to inform the consumer of those laws, and then complain about how the company does it.

Consumers should be aware of their rights; if the EU has reason to believe that they are not, then the EU should spend its money on some public service announcements instead of filing lawsuits. If there are mandatory disclosures that need to be made, then perhaps the EU should come up with standard terms and require those instead of saying, "No, not good enough, try again!"

I agree with you, but I think the issue with Apple isn't that they aren't blatantly telling people about it the existing EU law, but that with their wording and promotion of AppleCare they are implying that basic support only lasts one year.

Apple's excuse is/was that AppleCare covers product defects that occur after a product is purchased; the EU warranty covers only defects that were present at purchase (kind of like our "lemon law"). But that in itself can be difficult to prove, even with physical defects in manufacturing that take a while to manifest (for example, pre-unibody plastic MacBook top cases)

*In regards to the Italy issue:

Quote:

In the letter, Reding said that Apple's warranty adverts should be investigated after the company "failed to provide consumers clear, truthful, and complete information about what they are entitled under EU law."

"Apple prominently advertised that its products come with a one-year manufacturer warranty but failed to clearly indicate the consumers' automatic and free-of-cost entitlement to a minimum two-year guarantee under EU law," she wrote.

Again, and whether true or not, the accusation was that they were not simply not informing customers of the law, but were essentially telling people that they only way to get more than a year of coverage is to purchase the AppleCare plan.

We get all that. The issue at stake is that the EU seems to think it is the responsibility of Apple to inform them of their legal rights. Instead of, you know, just running some public service announcements or something.

I don't see anyone suggesting that consumer laws are bad, just that it is absurd to leave it up to a company to inform the consumer of those laws, and then complain about how the company does it.

Consumers should be aware of their rights; if the EU has reason to believe that they are not, then the EU should spend its money on some public service announcements instead of filing lawsuits. If there are mandatory disclosures that need to be made, then perhaps the EU should come up with standard terms and require those instead of saying, "No, not good enough, try again!"

The issue is not simply that Apple isn't informing consumers of their rights. It's that it's actively misleading those consumers, making them think they only have a 1-yr warranty that they have to pay to have extended.

I have to say (again - I've said it before on other stories about this) that Applecare absolutely is NOT equivalent to the EU consumer goods guarantee. Applecare will cover accidental damage, for instance, while the EU gurarantee only covers good functioning under normal use.

In short, in the EU a good must be fit for its intended purpose. Any malfunctioning or defect found within 2 years of purchase is presumed to have existed at that time and gives the buyer the right to demand repair, replacement or reimbursement from EITHER the seller OR the manufacturer.

We get all that. The issue at stake is that the EU seems to think it is the responsibility of Apple to inform them of their legal rights. Instead of, you know, just running some public service announcements or something.

I don't see anyone suggesting that consumer laws are bad, just that it is absurd to leave it up to a company to inform the consumer of those laws, and then complain about how the company does it.

Consumers should be aware of their rights; if the EU has reason to believe that they are not, then the EU should spend its money on some public service announcements instead of filing lawsuits. If there are mandatory disclosures that need to be made, then perhaps the EU should come up with standard terms and require those instead of saying, "No, not good enough, try again!"

Eh, they do when they've been actively misinforming consumers with "one-year limited warranty" when the statutory minimum is 2 years. If they've been misinforming at point of sale, then they're going to be misinforming and denying warranties when it comes to honouring their statutory obligations within the legal minimum v.s. falsely advertised minimum.

I have to say (again - I've said it before on other stories about this) that Applecare absolutely is NOT equivalent to the EU consumer goods guarantee. Applecare will cover accidental damage, for instance, while the EU gurarantee only covers good functioning under normal use.

* Apple's excuse is/was that AppleCare covers product defects that occur after a product is purchased; the EU warranty covers only defects that were present at purchase. Although that can kind of be open to interpretation.

Also, unless it is somehow different in the EU, AppleCare does not cover accidental damage. AppleCare+ (for iPads and iPhones) does, and is relatively a new thing (I believe after this case started). AP+ here only allows two incidents of total replacement for any reason at a cost of ~$50.

The only time Apple repairs accidental damage is if it's a defect (white MacBook topcase) and the occasional iDevice screen crack (depends on crack and technician pretty much).

Oh sure, if you spot the tiny "2" where it says in blue letters "garantia de um ano" (=one year warranty) and follow it to the bottom of the page and read the even tinyier grey letters in gray background you'll find a link to the actual facts. Note that the tiny "2" *isn't* a link, you have to manually scroll to the end of the page to find out what it means.

As a UK consumer I welcome a two year warranty, even if exactly what it covers is a little open to interpretation. What I do not welcome is a narrow focus on one company, when the EU should be focusing on all manufacturers and retailers. I have bought several items recently through online and high street retailers, and none of them has provided any details on my two year warranty. A couple even stated the warranty period was one year when asked.It appears Apple is doing the same as every other manufacturer with regard to warranties, but being the most successful company around at the moment it's the easy target yielding maximum publicity. Same as the focus on conditions in Chinese factories that also make Apple's competitors products, yet the competitors face little or no scrutiny. Improving conditions is the right thing to do, but why not treat all involved equally?I suffered the macbook topcover defect on a four year old model, and Apple repaired it with no charge or fuss. I don't think they had to do that under EU law, and I very much doubt a windows laptop bought in PC world would have been repaired after that period. I have also paid for five year extended warranties (above my one year included) only to find a product failing after three years would not be repaired because the warranties had been sold to another company, who changed what was covered or just refused to make a repair.This needs to start somewhere, but just picking the most successful company stinks of political posturing and being seen to do something. I welcome the day when all my purchases are covered by a clear two year warranty.

Just like Apple's warranty issue in Australia, and Microsoft's browser ballot issue in the EU, Apple need to either follow the law or leave the market. The law is there for a reason, and it is applied to all companies.

I wonder what we'd find if we cross-reference posters from the "EU fines Microsoft" and "EU unhappy with Apple" threads...

Just like Apple's warranty issue in Australia, and Microsoft's browser ballot issue in the EU, Apple need to either follow the law or leave the market. The law is there for a reason, and it is applied to all companies.

+1. Apple is supposed to be a premium company. They should be doing the right thing here.

There is a fundamental difference between 'warranty', 'AppleCare' and the coverage under European Consumer Laws. The coverage by consumer laws is nowhere near as comprehensive as warranty (where failing parts are covered) or AppleCare (which includes phone support).

To get a repair covered by consumer law (outside of the 1 year warranty) the consumer is legally required to prove that the fault was already present on the day of purchase. Only under these circumstances are companies required to cover the repair.

So a failing hard disk would be covered under warranty or AppleCare, but never under consumer law, unless the consumer provides a written expert statement with technical proof that the disk was faulty on day one.

Companies need to abide by consumer law, but there is no legal requirement whatsoever to change warranties.

On one hand I don't see why governments should be meddling in private business. Warranties are part of competition.

On the other, if that is the law, then it should be enforced and Apple not following it is unacceptable.

Governments meddle in private business because that is their job. We form governments to regulate ourselves and to represent the wants and needs of a society. Some people seem to think the free market is the end all be all solution to private enterprise but it has it own problems. We've seen what a pure free market delivers, and while there are good things, like economic development, and rising standards of living, there are also bad things like trusts and monopolies, and corruption.

Apple has very little competition. In the mobile space they have one real competitor, same as in the traditional computing market. They have no incentive to provide anything outside of a basic warranty if they think they can sell that as an addon for more money. In a truly free market, where hackintoshes could be sold next to iMacs, maybe they'd have an incentive to offer a better warranty out of the box.

In any case the EU has decided, on behalf of the member nations who make up its officials, that a 2 year warranty is required on companies selling these goods. So Apple will either follow the law or they will be punished.

You are correct in your argument about a governing body having the right to set rules in regards to warranties but your "Apple has very little competition" comment is ridiculous. Apple does not hold a monopoly position on any product or service it provides. Apple has plenty of competition.

As a UK consumer I welcome a two year warranty, even if exactly what it covers is a little open to interpretation. What I do not welcome is a narrow focus on one company, when the EU should be focusing on all manufacturers and retailers. I have bought several items recently through online and high street retailers, and none of them has provided any details on my two year warranty. A couple even stated the warranty period was one year when asked.It appears Apple is doing the same as every other manufacturer with regard to warranties, but being the most successful company around at the moment it's the easy target yielding maximum publicity. Same as the focus on conditions in Chinese factories that also make Apple's competitors products, yet the competitors face little or no scrutiny. Improving conditions is the right thing to do, but why not treat all involved equally?I suffered the macbook topcover defect on a four year old model, and Apple repaired it with no charge or fuss. I don't think they had to do that under EU law, and I very much doubt a windows laptop bought in PC world would have been repaired after that period. I have also paid for five year extended warranties (above my one year included) only to find a product failing after three years would not be repaired because the warranties had been sold to another company, who changed what was covered or just refused to make a repair.This needs to start somewhere, but just picking the most successful company stinks of political posturing and being seen to do something. I welcome the day when all my purchases are covered by a clear two year warranty.

Good post. Stunning that a couple of people down voted it. Probably Apple haters.

It's quite possible - likely even - that others are culpable of the same thing.

That won't work as an excuse though.

That's not the point. The point is the focus on Apple alone is unfair and malicious.

It also isn't a secret that EU authorities do not like America's dominance in the IT, technology, and related industries, not to mention the ever present anti-Americanism amongst many of its officials. I wouldn't be surprised that the focus on American companies is designed to harm American brands and shift market share away from them.

So with this high profit margin Apple really wants to tell me that they don't have enough confidence in their own products to simply offer the required two year warranty and instead refer to screwing customers over? First the whole issue with their supply chain and now this...I might have to switch back to Windows...

Apple is in trouble not because of hiding warranty information, but for making it seem the only way to get a warranty is to buy it from them.

By not hiding it like all others? Are you trying to make as much sense as the EU? There's a blurb about the EU statutory warranty on every page on the Apple Store. Well, on all but the page about AppleCare - because it doesn't apply to Services.